IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup

2014-02-28

06

Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

2014-02-28

06

Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

2014-02-28

06

Amy Vezza

Ballot approval text was generated

2014-02-28

06

(System)

Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed

2014-02-28

06

Amy Vezza

New revision available

2014-02-20

05

Cindy Morgan

IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation

2014-02-20

05

Sean Turner

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner

2014-02-20

05

Spencer Dawkins

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins

2014-02-19

05

Richard Barnes

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes

2014-02-19

05

Jari Arkko

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko

2014-02-19

05

Ted Lemon

[Ballot comment]The abstract would read better (IMHO) if you used the same terminology as in the title of the draft:

This document provides ...

[Ballot comment]The abstract would read better (IMHO) if you used the same terminology as in the title of the draft:

This document provides the offer/answer considerations for the G723 Annex A and the G729, G729D and G729E Annex B parameter when the value of the Annex A or Annex B parameter does not match in the Session Description protocol (SDP) offer and answer.

It's good to see this work happening—thanks for doing it!

2014-02-19

05

Ted Lemon

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Lemon

2014-02-19

05

Pete Resnick

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick

2014-02-18

05

Stewart Bryant

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant

2014-02-18

05

Brian Haberman

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman

2014-02-17

05

Barry Leiba

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from No Record

2014-02-17

05

Barry Leiba

[Ballot comment]-- Section 3 --

This came at me from out of the blue when I read it. What does it have to do with ...

[Ballot comment]-- Section 3 --

This came at me from out of the blue when I read it. What does it have to do with Annex A or Annex B? You talk about comfort noise frames in here, without any other mention of them in the document. What is Section 3 here for?

-- Sections 3.1 and 3.2 --

This is purely an editorial point -- I think you're saying, technically, what you need to say -- but I find these two sections to be rather convoluted. I think, for example, this specifies the same thing, more clearly and concisely:

NEW (Section 3.1)When a G723 offer or answer lacks an "annexa" parameter, "annexa=yes" is implied.

When a G723 offer and its corresponding answer both specify or imply "annexa=yes", then G723 is negotiated with "annexa=yes".

Otherwise ("annexa=no" is specified in either or both of the offer and answer), then G723 is negotiated with "annexa=no"END

Is there really a reason for the rest of the wordiness, which I think actually comes across as confusing?

2014-02-17

05

Barry Leiba

Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba

2014-02-17

05

Stephen Farrell

[Ballot comment]

- I think a reference to RFC 6562 in the securityconsiderations would be useful.

- Based on 6562, I also wondered if it'd ...

[Ballot comment]

- I think a reference to RFC 6562 in the securityconsiderations would be useful.

- Based on 6562, I also wondered if it'd really bebetter for the defaults to be turned around frommissing==yes to missing==no? Even if that's notfeasible, were it desirable, it'd be worth noting.

2014-02-17

05

Stephen Farrell

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell

The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia SessionControl WG (mmusic) to consider the following document:- 'Offer/Answer Considerations for G723 Annex A and G729 Annex B' as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicitsfinal comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to theietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-11-27. Exceptionally, comments may besent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain thebeginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

RFC4856 describes the annexa parameter for G723 and the annexb parameter for G729, G729D and G729E. However, the specification does not describe the offerer and answerer behavior when the value of the annexa or annexb parameter does not match in the Session Description protocol(SDP) offer and answer. This document provides the offer/ answer considerations for these parameters and updates RFC4856.